Abstract
Recency testing can provide strategic insights as to whether a person newly diagnosed with HIV recently acquired their infection or not. To understand potential biases associated with HIV recency testing, we explored the extent sample type influences whether a person is assigned as being recent. Implementing a laboratory-based Recent Infection Testing Algorithm (RITA) across the Centre for Sexual Health and HIV/AIDS Research (CeSHHAR) key populations programme in Zimbabwe between October 2021 and January 2023, we compared plasma-based and dried-bloodspot (DBS) HIV recency samples. Over the study period, 24,976 individual female sex workers HIV tested, of whom 9.5% (2,363/24,979) newly tested HIV positive. Of these 2,363 women, 55.5% (1311/2,363) were offered and gave consent for a sample to be taken for DBS recency and viral load testing, among whom 11.7% (153/1,311) were classified as having a recent infection. A subset of 464 women were offered and consented to paired sample collection, among whom 10.1% (47) and 12.3% (57) of plasma and DBS samples, respectively, were classified as recent. Overall, categorical determination was good, with 97% of results concordant. Of 58 women with paired sample collection who had a test result classified as recent, 46 (79.3%) were concordant recent on both DBS and plasma, with 12 (20.7%) being dis-concordant. Of these 12 women’s samples, 11 were deemed long-standing by the plasma assay but recent by the paired DBS, and one deemed long-standing by DBS but recent by the paired plasma sample. Depending on use-case and setting, there are trade-offs when considering DBS or plasma-based samples between test performance and ease of implementation. Our data can help inform statistical adjustments to harmonise cut-offs on DBS and plasma assays, thereby improving the use and interpretation of recency assays in population-level HIV surveillance activities.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation for the MeSH Consortium (OPP1120138 to BR). The authors take sole responsibility of the content of this manuscript and confirm the funders who provided financial support for this work did not influence the findings.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
Ethical approval was granted by the Medical Research Council of Zimbabwe (MRCZ/A/2244) and the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine (14542 1)
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
A de-identified dataset with variables included in this analysis can be made available on request to the Centre for Sexual Health & HIV/AIDS Research Zimbabwe, subject to ethical approval of a proposal.
